CINDY SHEEHAN DOESN’T SPEAK FOR ME
CINDY SHEEHAN DOESN’T SPEAK FOR ME OR,
THANK GOD, FOR MOST OF AMERICA
It is not my custom, nor that of this paper, to have columnists praise one another with respect to a particular column. It is a custom that I would have honored, had it not been for a guest column by a Professor Schaffer taking issue with J.J. McDonough’s column appearing in the August 17th issue of this paper. The column was superb, prompting me to send J.J. the following email:
J.J.
I read your last column—heroine or harlequin—over lunch today ,and I just wanted to congratulate you on a job well done, I have read a ton on the War in Iraq (an absolutely appropriate war, despite the ravings of the Left), in general and about Cindy Sheehan, in particular. Regarding Sheehan, your piece was far and away the best thing I have seen. It was succinct but complete. It was penetrating, yet profound. And most of all, and what made it so exceptional—it was personal. It demonstrated that there are Americans who may be dealt a terrible blow yet remain patriotic—indeed, whose patriotism is fueled by the fact that their family has paid a dear price for our freedom.
And your treatment of a potentially devastating subject—liberals were just dying to se you attack a forlorn mother—was incredibly deft in its sensitivity; you opened the door far enough for a grieving mother to slip through, but no so far as to allow entance for a Marxist dupe. A Masterful job—a paean to America and her military.
I was honored to share the paper with you—on that day every other columnist, perforce, ran a distant second. Again, J.J. my hat’s off to you for an exceptional effort and a patriotic job well done. Ken Eliasberg
Please bear in mind that I hardly know J.J., so the above is not the result of either a friendship or membership in some mutual admiration society. J.J.’s piece was quite simply the best coverage of the Cindy Sheehan debacle that I had seen.
So, it came as no surprise that the good professor seized the moment to criticize the column. He is consistent; he has never been right. He reminds me of an old bureacrat that was employed by the I.R.S. in Washington when I went to work there on completing graduate school. He relied heavily on his age and tenure to compensate for the fact that he was completely in the dark on virtually everything. In fact, on my arrival, one of my buddies advised me that if, on reviewing your work, he ever agrees with you, go back and check your research—you obviously did something wrong.
The professor doesn’t agree with this war, an opinion to which he is certainly entitled (no matter how egregiously wrong it might be). He didn’t like Korea or Vietnam or Iraq. Now, really, who did or does. War is just not a pleasant or desirable undertaking. However, occasionally it is necessary; freedom isn’t free. Now the professor tacitly conceded that WWI and WWII were different, but I’ll wager he would have contested those to if given a timely opportunity.
What, you might ask would be his foreign policy position on matters of this nature? Simple—appeasement. I suspect he would turn our foreign policy over to the U.N., a worthless body, and blame America as an imperialistic monster, out to establish our hegemony throughout the world.
I always know that when he disagrees with me (which is, I suspect—and hope—all the time), I am on the right track. His disagreement doesn’t bother me; on the contrary it validates me. What does bother me is that a man with so little knowledge, wisdom, judgment, or courage is advising our 18-year olds as to what America is all about. How thoroughly scary; we are turning out a generation of young Americans, who, thanks to people like professor Schaffer, will have so little pride in their country—the greatest country on earth , yesterday, today, and, despite the good professor and his ilk, tomorrow. Way to go, J.J., you nailed this one; keep up the good work!!